Get an overview of all available Radarr API endpoints and their details. Use this to discover the full API surface for managing movies and related operations.
Read ApiInfo.
GET /api
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the resource name, but no additional behavioral context like response structure or pagination. Since the tool is simple and read-only, the description doesn't contradict annotations and provides marginal extra value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two lines: a concise statement and the HTTP method. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more descriptive but remains appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, a clear read-only intent, and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. The agent can infer the action and resource. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't detract from that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('ApiInfo'), and includes the HTTP endpoint 'GET /api'. It distinguishes this tool as a read operation for API information, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* siblings beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The description is purely functional without routing the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.